Don't Blame Mchale For Judge Snub

WHITE

"Judge Robert A. Freedberg would have been a great federal judge," wrote Allentown lawyer and perennial losing Democratic candidate Richard Orloski in a letter to the editor this week.

"U.S. Rep. Paul McHale had a choice. As a retiring congressman, his legacy could have been the appointment of Judge Freedberg to the federal court. The alternative: 15 seconds of fame appearing on Larry King as the lone Democrat in Congress publicly trashing the Democratic president. Paul chose 15 seconds of fame instead of leaving the Lehigh Valley with a lifetime of service by Judge Freedberg as a federal judge."

FOR THE RECORD - (Published Thursday, February 04, 1999) The column about Judge Freedberg on Wednesday was written by staffer Bill White. The byline on the column was incorrect in some editions.

This is neither the first nor, I suspect, the last time Orloski has been spectacularly wrong. But his argument is so idiotic that I feel the need to react. Let's review the facts:

Then-U.S. Rep. McHale lobbied for years to have Northampton County President Judge Freedberg chosen for a federal judgeship, and President Clinton finally nominated Freedberg last year to fill a vacancy on the Eastern District court. But U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum put a choke hold on Freedberg's confirmation as part of a political deal involving other nominations, and Congress adjourned without acting.

Meanwhile, McHale became the first Democrat to call for Clinton's resignation, and one of the few to vote to impeach him. This did not sit well with the White House.

When Clinton announced this year's judge nominations, Freedberg wasn't on the list. Santorum, much like an ax murderer complaining about his victim's paltry burial arrangements, said he was appalled.

"Sen. Santorum sees this as pure political retribution on behalf of the White House for the votes cast by Congressman McHale," Santorum spokeswoman Melissa Sabatine said. "The senator feels it's extremely inappropriate for the president to be exacting this type of retribution for someone voting his conscience."

Now, back to Orloski's letter.

The accusation that McHale decided to bash and then impeach Clinton in order to get publicity is dumb. The guy was in the process of giving up his congressional seat to retire to private life, not exactly the decision of some publicity hound who can't resist a shot on Larry King. There's no question in my mind that he voted his conscience.

And it's preposterous to suggest that he should have made the decision on the basis of how it might affect Freedberg's renomination down the line. Most everyone agrees that Freedberg would make a fine federal judge, but if you're deciding whether our president should be removed from office, you'd darned well better make that call on its own merits.

Think about the cynicism inherent in Orloski's criticism. You must suppose that McHale assumed as a matter of course that Clinton would abuse his power by depriving this region of an excellent judicial candidate as an act of retaliation. And then you're saying McHale should allow himself to be blackmailed into voting against his conscience.

Is this really what our government should be about?

But while we're on the subject, a couple of bashings are in order. Let's start with the Clinton White House. Whether they really are punishing McHale, or just caving in as usual to the Philadelphia party bosses who want only their own cronies on the bench, they're hurting a region and a fine judge who deserves better.

As for Santorum, his hypocrisy is stunning. If he hadn't played political games with the nomination, Freedberg would be a federal judge already. This feigned outrage now is impossible to stomach.

Lehigh Valley voters won't get another shot at Clinton, or at McHale, for that matter. But Santorum will be seeking re-election next year.

If you're unhappy that your U.S. senator single-handedly torpedoed Robert Freedberg's nomination, remember to let him know how you feel -- by overwhelmingly voting to make him an ex-senator.